BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Authors Evaluation
Guo XW, Xu XX, Deng BJ, Zhou GF, Zhou Q, Gao XX, Du CZ, Qiao Z, Li HT. Harnessing minimal residual disease for precision medicine in locally advanced gastric cancer. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(7): 121993 [DOI: 10.5306/wjco.121993]
Evaluation of a Journal’s Credibility by Authors
The purpose of an author’s evaluation of a journal’s credibility is to assess the degree of satisfaction with the manuscript editing and publishing process. This evaluation is for user’s reference only.
1 Are you satisfied with the online submission system?
Yes
2 Are you satisfied with the peer review report?
Yes
3 Are you satisfied with the editing quality of the article?
Yes
4 Are you satisfied with the article PDFs?
Yes
5 Are you satisfied with the online full-text article?
Yes
6 Are you satisfied with the prepared figures in the online full-text article?
Yes
7 Are you satisfied with the prepared tables in the online full-text article?
Yes
8 Are you satisfied with the published articles processes?
Yes
9 Are you satisfied with the requirement for providing academic rules and norms?
Yes
10 Are you satisfied with the academic misconduct detection report?
Yes
11 Are you satisfied with the period of publication?
Yes
12 Are you satisfied with the editing and publishing rules and norms?
Yes
Evaluation of a Journal’s Peer Review by Authors
The purpose of an author’s evaluation of a given journal’s peer review is to assess the degree of satisfaction with the peer review process. This evaluation is for user’s reference only.
1 Are you satisfied with the time spent for peer review?
Yes
2 Are you satisfied with the anonymous peer review process?
Yes
3 Is the peer review report of great help to your manuscript?
Yes
4 Do you think the peer review report for your manuscript is fair or objective?
Yes
Author‘s Comments
We are greatly honored that our manuscript has been accepted for publication in the World Journal of Clinical Oncology. We would like to sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their professional work and valuable guidance throughout the entire submission and revision process. The peer-review procedure of the journal was rigorous, standardized and efficient. The editorial office provided timely and thoughtful responses during our submission. The constructive and professional comments from the reviewers greatly helped us improve the quality, accuracy and academic rigor of our manuscript. We have truly benefited a lot from this experience. We highly appreciate the excellent academic standards and professional editorial service of the World Journal of Clinical Oncology. We will keep following the journal’s development and look forward to submitting more high-quality studies to this outstanding journal in the future.
Reply from the Editorial Office
Thanks for taking the time to share this feedback with us. We would love to work with you again!